Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 20 state attorneys general, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.
Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.
The Obama administration is starting a last-ditch effort to make "clean coal" a climate change solution, despite its heavy focus on renewables and stiff rules to phase out fossil fuel.
But it's a big gamble. Clean coal technology faces a number of woes in becoming commercial, especially from natural gas that is much more cost effective.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s two very pricey legacy projects took hits in the Legislature last week. They were light jabs, and he didn’t even flinch.
But the fact that some fellow Democrats had the temerity to challenge the popular governor was a sign of growing legislative — and public — skepticism about these highly controversial pet projects.
One legislative committee advanced a bill that would force the Brown administration to be more open and candid about the $64-billion, zigzagging bullet train.
The great white environmentalist sharks smell blood in the water. It’s gushing from mortally wounded US coal companies that the Obama EPA has gutted as sacrifices on the altar of “dangerous manmade climate change” prevention and other spurious health, ecological and planetary scares.
Peabody Energy, Arch Coal and other once vibrant coal producers have filed for Chapter 11 protection, shedding some $30 billion in shareholder value and tens of thousands of jobs in their companies and dependent industries. The bloodletting has left communities and states reeling, union pension funds and 401k plans empty, and the health, welfare, hopes and dreams of countless families dashed on the rocks.
It’s important to remember on Earth Day that it’s unlikely trees are going extinct, despite recent concerns made by green researchers.
Environmentalists and conservationists helped spur a grassroots campaign in the 1970s helping to create Earth Day, in part over concerns trees would become extinct as a result of so-called man-made global warming.
Studies have issued dire warning about tree’s chances of survival in the age of man-made global warming.
Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.
Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.
Today is Earth Day, ostensibly a symbolic holiday to give our planet the day off. It's also the day when 167 confirmed countries have said they will sign the climate accord reached at the Paris Climate Talks last December. But the goal of averting warming by 2.0 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, or 1.5 degrees if that wasn't attainable, is voluntary for the largest carbon dioxide emitters. More troubling, it also allocates $100 billion in aid to developing countries, which critics argue was the U.N.'s goal all along.
One of the most frequently used rhetorical devices to avoid answering the questions of the critics of the AGW scare is the proposition that there is a astonishing scientific ‘consensus’ on the point: some 97 per cent of climate scientists are said to agree. By implication, the other 3 per cent are simply ignorant, mavericks or troublemakers, to be lumped in with other people who fall into the category ‘climate deniers’. We are thus asked to accept the authority of the consensus, and to cease and desist from questioning anything about global warming or ‘climate change’.
NY AG Eric SchneidermanBarely two weeks after the March 29 press conference where Al Gore and a group of state attorneys general vowed to push ahead on potentially prosecuting "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change," a surprising news situation developed where Wall Street Journal reporters announced they had viewed a leaked email agenda printout detailing how a small group of environmentalists were scheming "to establish in public's mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution." Two days later, the Washington Free Beacon showed the printout, and other news outlets later referred to it and the environmentalist names within it, most prominently environmentalist lawyer Matt Pawa.
To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected--oil, coal and natural gas.
There seems to be a sentiment that only "scientists" can credibly weigh-in on the subject of global warming. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) suggested as much last week, during a fiery Senate committee exchange with Alex Epstein, author of ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.’ After Epstein had explained his rationale for the continued use of fossil fuels, Sen. Boxer belligerently asked, “Are you a scientist?”
The presumption, of course, is that Epstein’s views should simply be minimized if he’s not a practicing “scientist.” Of course, Sen. Boxer isn’t a scientist either. Even worse, we can infer that she would prefer to merely acquiesce to “scientific opinion.” But since untold numbers of scientists have publicly rejected the theory of man-made global warming (including ten of thousands in ‘The Petition Project’ alone), Boxer has clearly aligned herself with only one slice of the scientific community.